Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors Studying General English: A Case of Iranian EFL Context

Transcription

1 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 5 (4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 ISSN: pp Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors Studying General English: A Case of Iranian EFL Context M. Moiinvaziri Ph.D in TEFL Department of English Language, Sirjan Branch, Islamic Azad University moiinvaziri@iausirjan.ac.ir S. A. Razmjoo Associate Professor, TEFL Shiraz University arazmjoo@rose.shirazu.ac.ir Abstract The literature on language teaching and learning has mostly accentuated motivation as one of the crucial factors influencing learners, but demotivating factors can be of crucial importance as well. In this vein, considering a grounded theory approach, this study has tried to investigate the demotivating factors influencing Iranian university students of non-english majors utilizing an interview and a questionnaire. For this purpose, thirty undergraduate students were interviewed from three different universities: State University, Islamic Azad University, and Payame Noor University. Based on the elicited responses from the interviews, a 35-item questionnaire was developed. Applying principal factor analysis, this research has brought forth the shared perception of demotivating factors in language learning among Iranian university students and documented them as a five-factor model in which the factors of setbacks in system of education and lack of extrinsic motivation were the most and the least influential ones, respectively. The other factors also included methods and personality of teachers, lack of self-esteem and intrinsic motivation, and lack of given importance in society. Keywords: demotivation, demotivating factors, motivation, model development, grounded theory approach 1. Introduction Motivation has always been one of the major factors in language teaching and learning. Most teachers dream of motivated students who strive hard to Received: 04/25/2013 Accepted: 11/04/2013 Corresponding author

2 42 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 achieve success. According to Koiso (2003, p. 96), motivation is considered to be one of the main determining factors of success in developing a second or foreign language. The relationship between motivation and language learning has also been a subject of inquiry for many years and it has been shown that motivation is crucial for L2 learning (Dörnyei, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994) due to its direct influences on students' effort, their use of learning strategies, their interaction with native speakers, the input the they receive, their performance in the curriculum-related achievement tests, the amount of their general proficiency level, and their preservation and maintenance of L2 skills after the end of the language study (Ely, 1986a, 1986b; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992; Spolsky, 1989). As English has grown toward an international language, there has been more emphasis to learn English throughout the world. Iran as an EFL context is not an exception and these changes can be seen through the sudden increase in the number of language institutes and the parents exerted pressure on their children to learn the language. Yet, despite the fact that students are being required to learn English through compulsory programs at schools and universities and have to pass the English course in order to graduate, a large number of students do not seem to have developed any interest in learning English, and if they have, this interest has been lost for some reasons, that is, they have become demotivated. It seems that not only motivating factors but also demotivating factors can have crucial roles in the process of learning the language. Although, as mentioned above, there has been a large amount of research regarding the issue of motivating language learners and the fact that most of the researches in relation to motivation have focused on motivational factors, demotivating factors have not received this much attention. As the literature on demotivation is relatively scarce, there seems to be a need for a more critical look at its underlying causes especially among the language learners in an EFL context like Iran. Hence, perceiving a grounded theory approach, this study has tried to present a framework for the demotivating factors influencing the university students of Sirjan, Kerman, Iran in their learning English. It is hoped that this framework can be beneficial in presenting effective solutions for the students demotivational problems. 2. Objectives and Research Questions While most of the literature on teaching and learning languages focuses on students motivation to learn a language, the high extrinsic motivational context and the failure of students to adequately learn foreign languages

3 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors 43 (especially English) under those conditions, suggest that motivation alone may not be a sufficient explanation for understanding and treating the current FL learning problems found in such contexts and the demotivating factors as an important cause should also be investigated. This study has tried to find the answer to the following questions: 1. What are the demotivating factors among the university students of Sirjan studying in an EFL context? 2. Which factors are the most and the least influential demotivating factors among these university students? 3. Are there any differences among the students of different universities in terms of demotivating factors? 4. Are there any differences among males and females' demotivating factors? 5. Is there any relationship between age and demotivating factors? 6. Through the use of grounded theory, what is the proposed model for university students' demotivating factors in Iran? 3. Literature Review The term motivation is used constantly in the everyday and professional context but defining motivation precisely is a demanding task due to its complex and multifaceted nature. Despite the complexity of defining motivation in L2 learning, it has been found to be one of the most influential factors of the individual differences in language learning. Having a clear understanding of motivation is of vital importance for language teachers, because it is one of the key driving forces in language learning success (Dörnyei, 2001). Thus, the considerable amount of studies in this regard comes as no surprise. The most extensive studies in the area of L2 attitude and motivation have been conducted by Robert Gardner and his associates (Dörnyei, 1994, p. 273). The socio-educational model of second language acquisition by Gardner (1985) outlines how motivation is related to other individual differences in language learning and language achievement. Three primary variables constitute the socio-educational model. The first one is integrativeness, and the second one is attitudes toward the learning situation both of which influence the third variable, motivation to learn the L2. Another theory was self-determination theory presented by Deci and Ryan (1985). In self-determination theory, motivation is seen to consist of two types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which lie on a continuum of self-determination (Noels et al., 2003, p. 38). As research on motivation and motivational factors continued, one new area of research was found which was highly connected to the immediate

4 44 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 learning environment. This new area which is sometimes called the darker side of motivation is demotivation. Dörnyei (2001) has contributed a lot to increasing the awareness towards demotivation. He defines demotivation as specific external forces that reduce or diminish the motivational basis of a behavioral intention or an ongoing action (p. 143). According to Dörnyei, a demotivated learner is someone who has previously been motivated but for some reasons has lost his/her interest and commitment to learn. De-motives which are the negative counterparts of motives are the reasons for losing interest in learning. Whereas motives increase the action tendency, demotives de-energize it (Dörnyei, 2001, p.142). Dörnyei (1998, as cited in Dörnyei, 2001) conducted a research on fifty secondary school students in Budapest, Hungary who were studying English or German as a foreign language and identified nine demotivating factors as follow: 1) Teachers personalities, commitments, competence, and teaching methods 2) Inadequate school facilities (very large classes, not the right level, or frequent change of teachers) 3) Reduced self-confidence due to their experience of failure or success 4) Negative attitude towards the foreign language studied 5) Compulsory nature of the foreign language study 6) Interference of another foreign language that pupils are studying 7) Negative attitude towards the community of the foreign language spoken 8) Attitudes of group members 9) Coursebooks used in the class (p. 151) Dörnyei (2001) also mentions some other similar studies on demotivation like Chambers (1993), Oxford (1998) and Ushioda (1998). In these studies, different methods of collecting data such as questionnaires, content analysis, and interviews were utilized and the teacher-related factors were detected as the main factor demotivating students. Among some recent investigations, Trang and Baldauf (2007) studied 100 EFL students in Vietnam using stimulated recall essays to examine the demotivating factors influencing students' English learning and categorized their findings as follows: Internal Demotivating Factors 1. Attitudes towards English 2. Experiences of failure or lack of success 3. Self-esteem Teacher-related Demotivating Factors

5 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors Teacher behavior 2. Teacher competence 3. Teaching method 4. Grading and assessment But none of these factors were considered more influential than the others. In another study, Kikuchi and Sakai (2007) developed a 35-item questionnaire to gather the data in terms of the demotivating factors among Japanese high-school students. One hundred and twelve students attending three private universities in Eastern Japan completed the questionnaire and the following five demotivating factors were extracted: 1. Coursebooks 2. Inadequate School Facilities 3. Test Scores 4. Non-Communicative Methods 5. Teachers Competence and Teaching Styles More recently, in a study by Falout et al. (2009), nine hundred EFL university students in Tokyo were studied and the results indicated that contrary to some mentioned researches the role of teacher in students' motivation was quite inspiring while the dominant pedagogy (grammartranslation) posed the largest treat to the students' motivation. Although there have been some studies regarding demotivation and demotivating factors inside the classroom and among the students, these factors have not received enough attention in Iran as an EFL context. There were a few studies in this regard. One was done by Sharififar and Akbarzadeh (2011) in which they had used Kikuchi and Sakai s (2007) scale and questionnaire for investigating the demotivating factors among 53 university students in Iran and their results included three major factors: teacher-related, student-related, and classroom-related demotivating factors from which the last was concluded as the most influential one among the students. Alavinia and Sehat (2012) investigated the demotivating factors of 165 high school students. The students were given a 50-item questionnaire which emphasized the negative experiences of learners in their learning English. In another study Jomairi (2011) studied the main causes of demotivation among the 189 B.A. English majors in Azad, Payame Noor, and State universities in Tehran, Iran. She used a 25-item questionnaire and four demotivating factors, i.e. (1) teacher; (2) learners lack of motivation and self-confidence; (3) test-scores; and (4) inadequate university facilities were detected.

6 46 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 Although these studies show different ranges of demotivating factors and increase our understanding of demotivation, the results are somewhat dissimilar and have used the models and materials invented in other context than Iran. Since demotivating factors are context-related and closely influenced by different social and cultural contexts, presentation of an exclusive framework can be of great importance in finding the most suitable remedy for the de-motivational problems of Iranian students. 4. Method 4.1 Participants The participants in this study were 317 (171 males, 146 females) undergraduate students from different majors studying in three major universities of Sirjan including Islamic Azad University, Industrial University (State University), and Payame Noor University who were all having the General English Course. Considering the possibility of the difference in demotivating factors influencing English and non-english majors and also for the better accuracy of the results, only non-english majors were selected as the research participants. In the first part of the study, 30 (18 male, 22 female) students from the three mentioned universities were selected and interviewed utilizing a purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 1990). In the second part, using cluster sampling, 6 General English classes in the three universities were selected. The average of 50 students, who attended each class, answered a self-made questionnaire. 4.2 Instruments Interview The instrument used for this study included a semi-structured interview which contained 4 questions (see appendix A) based on the previous literature as a guideline for conducting the interviews. With the purpose of better communication, the interview was conducted in Persian. The general structure of the interview was based on Lynch s (1996) interview guide: Casual, put-the-interviewee-at-ease questions/comments: i.e. the researcher tells them a bit about herself and explains the purpose of the interview. General questions: The researcher asks the participants about their general opinions about what they think about demotivation and demotivating factors in foreign language learning. Specific questions: The researcher goes over the questions in the interview schedule.

7 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors 47 Closing questions: The researcher asks the participants about how the before mentioned factors could be minimized. Casual, wind-down questions/comments: The researcher expresses appreciation of their participation (p.132). The selection of interview participants was based on the criteria that they must be of non-english undergraduate majors studying in one of the mentioned universities as well as having the course of General English. Furthermore, they should be willing to do the interview and have their voices recorded. In order to check the credibility of the obtained data for the qualitative phase, member-checking and peer-debriefing were used. For memberchecking, the participants were asked to review the drafts and the themes emerging from the research to assess and garner the feedback about the accuracy of the interpretations. Peer-debriefing involved an external check of the research by a graduate colleague who was provided with the raw data and the researcher s interpretations and explanations in order to review and ask questions about the research to ensure that the study made sense and the interpretations from the data were plausible and accurate Questionnaire Another instrument used in this research was a self-constructed questionnaire based on the information gathered through the interviews which planned to investigate the most and the least influential demotivating factors in students' language learning. The questionnaire was translated into Persian to increase students level of understanding. Three EFL students read the translated items and provided feedback on their comprehensibility. The first part of the questionnaire elicited the respondents demographic information, i.e. the name of their university, age, and gender. The second part included the Likert-scale questions and the participants were required to choose one of the alternatives: 1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: neutral; 4: agree; and 5: strongly agree. The developed questionnaire was subjected to review for content validity by two external experts and faculty colleagues at the research site. In addition, students participated in the qualitative phase of the research reviewed the questionnaire prior to its distribution, confirming an accurate representation of the themes discussed in that phase. Then, the questionnaire was distributed among a group of 50 students similar to the target participants and the reliability and internal consistency of the instrument were confirmed by factor analysis and the calculation of the coefficient alpha for all the questions. Through this process, several items were eliminated because they exhibited low factor loadings (less than 0.3) or

8 48 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 loaded highly on more than one factor. Finally, a 35-item questionnaire was ready to be administered (see appendix B). The Cronbach-alpha coefficient for the reliability of this questionnaire was estimated as Procedures Data collection The current study has employed a mixed method design which includes both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Such a method integrates both approaches to provide a much more detailed and comprehensive picture of the issue under investigation. The data in this study were collected in three phases. In the first phase, in order to yield an in-depth, rich understanding of the students experiences and feelings concerning the demotivating factors in language learning, semi-structured interviews were conducted. In the second phase, the recorded interviews were transcribed and decoded. Using the assays of grounded theory approach, i.e. open coding, axil coding, and selective coding (Ary et al., 2010), different categories were generated. Then, the categories were brought together in the form of a model of the demotivating factors influencing students. In the last phase, in order to reach a deeper and broader perspective of the previous phases and the presented model of demotivating factors, a questionnaire was created and distributed among 317 university students Data analysis Qualitative analysis After transcribing, organizing, and getting familiarized with the obtained data, the raw data was codified through a process which is referred to as open or preliminary coding. Here, the researcher detected a wide range of concepts and categories regarding the demotivating factors which were reduced later. Then, the researcher tried to develop the core categories applying the axial coding. In the last step, called selective coding, some categories were integrated to create a model for demotivating factors influencing Iranian learners (Ary et al., 2010). The obtained model was comprised of seven major categories which will be thoroughly presented later Quantitative analysis A questionnaire was developed based on the qualitative data gathered through the interviews and distributed among the participants. After collecting the distributed questionnaires, an exploratory factor analysis was performed to explore the factor structure of the items. In addition, descriptive statistics, the independent samples t-test (to determine the gender differences with regard to the demotivating factors), one-way ANOVA (to investigate the difference between the demotivation of different

9 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors 49 universities), and Pearson correlation coefficient (to study the relationship between age and demotivation) were applied as well. 5. Results 5.1 Analysis of the interview results After the transcribed interviews were categorized through the open coding, some primitive concepts were identified. For instance, many students believed that the reason for their demotivation lied in their insufficient learning at school. They said that, in the very beginning years of their learning English, they had not acquired the basic knowledge they needed, so that this lack of knowledge was the source of their present demotivation. Some others believed that teachers should be blamed for such demotivation towards learning English. They said teachers attitudes, methods of teaching, lack of interest, lack of proficiency, and absence during the semester were among the important problems they had with their teachers. Family problems like lack of their parents financial and emotional support and working along with studying were also among the reasons raised by the students for their demotivation. Another group of the students held themselves responsible, saying their lack of intrinsic interest and aptitude was the problem. They also mentioned the difficulty and inapplicability of learning English as a foreign language as another demotivating factor. In addition to what was cited above, there were still other reasons mentioned, like the negative effect of friends or the unsuitability of the educational environment. The students stated that some of their classmates discouraged them or by messing the class did not let them pay attention to the teacher. A group of students felt the society and the system of education were responsible for their lack of motivation. They said that learning English as a foreign language does not receive enough attention in the society or in the media. On the other hand, the system of education does not present a well-developed program for developing students proficiency in the foreign language. The first grade of the guidance school is too late to start learning another language from. Furthermore, what is emphasized only includes the grades, and students proficiency in different skills like speaking, listening, reading, and writing does not receive much importance. In conclusion, a rudimentary model of students demotivation containing seven major categories or themes were induced as follow: 1. Family (family problems, lack of attention and supports from the parents) 2. Teachers (method of teaching, attitude, management, proficiency, and personality)

10 50 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 3. Lack of self-esteem and intrinsic and personal motivation 4. Negative influence of friends and classmates 5. Unsuitable educational environment and lack of enough facilities 6. Lack of given importance to the foreign languages in society 7. Setbacks of the system of education 5.2 Analysis of the questionnaire results Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the questionnaire s items. According to Oxford (1990, p. 300), the mean scores that fall between 1.0 and 2.4 are identified as low influence, 2.5 and 3.4 as medium influence, and 3.5 and 5.0 as high influence. These categories of ratings were theoretically and arithmetically chosen. Low Medium High As it is detected from the table, most items except for the items 1,3,15,16,20,21 and 32 had a mean of higher than 2.5. Therefore, the mentioned items had low influences on the demotivating language learners, but all the other items had medium and high influences. Table 1. Descriptive statistics for questionnaire responses (asterisks show the deleted items) No M SD Skewness Kurtosis * * * * * * * *

11 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors * * * Through principal factor analysis, the dimensionality of the 35 items was analyzed. Through Varimax method, ten factors were loaded. For the interpretation of the factor loadings, the criterion of.40 or above was used (Field, 2005). Factors seven, eight, and nine were eliminated because they contained only one item. In addition, factor ten which included items below 0.40 was also deleted. The deleted items are shown by the asterisks in Table 1. Table 2 shows the rotated solutions. Table 2. Factor analysis of demotivation Item Numbers F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Factor 1: lack of self-esteem and intrinsic motivation (α=0.838 ) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Factor 2: teachers methods and personality (α=0.754 ) Q Q Q

12 52 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 Q Q Factor3: lack of extrinsic motivation (α=0.612 ) Q Q Q Q Factor 4: setbacks in system of education (α=0.514 ) Q Q Q Factor 5: lack of given importance in society (α=0.596 ) Q Q Q Factor 6: unsuitable class environment (α=0.478 ) Q Q After a detailed examination of the items under each factor, the following six factors were identified: (1) lack of self-esteem and intrinsic motivation (items 14, 27, 4, 20, 3, 19); (2) teachers methods and personality (items 25, 26, 19, 13, 2); (3) lack of extrinsic motivation (items 32, 33, 16, 21); (4) setbacks in the system of education (items 30, 29, 23); (5) lack of given importance in society (items 35, 24, 11) and (6) unsuitable class environment (items 28, 10). The loading of each item and the reliability coefficient measured by Cronbach s alpha are also given. The Cronbach s alpha for the whole questionnaire after the omission of the items was Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics for each factor. Table 3. Descriptive statistics for demotivating factors Factor Number K M SD Skewness Kurtosis

13 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors 53 Factors four and five are the most influential having the mean-scores of 3.69 and 3.63, respectively. While factors two and six with the mean-scores of 3.37 and 3.06 have an average influence, factors one and three with the mean-scores of 2.33 and 1.60 show a low influence. Therefore, the setbacks of the system of education were detected as the most demotivating factors and the lack of extrinsic motivation as the least demotivating factor in this context. 5.3 Differences among the three universities regarding the demotivating factors To investigate the difference among the type of university (State, Azad, and Payame Noor Universities) with regard to each demotivating factor, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized as seen in Table 4. Table 4. One-way ANOVA results: Influence of type of University on each factor Factor 1 Mean Std. Deviation F DF Sig State Azad Payame Noor Factor 2 Mean Std. Deviation F DF Sig State Azad Payame Noor Factor 3 Mean Std. Deviation F DF Sig State Azad Payame Noor Factor 4 Mean Std. Deviation F DF Sig State Azad Payame Noor Factor 5 Mean Std. Deviation F DF Sig State Azad Payame Noor Factor 6 Mean Std. Deviation F DF Sig State Azad Payame Noor The above results indicate that Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4, with the significance levels of 0.000, 0.005, 0.000, and 0.003, respectively, are statistically

14 54 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 significant with regard to the three universities. The mean scores of Payame Noor university students show that factors 1, 3, and 4 greatly influence such students. Azad university students are more influenced by factor 2 than the students of the other two universities. The other two factors (5 and 6) showed no difference regarding which university the participants are studying. 5.4 Impact of gender on demotivating factors Table 5 shows the influence of gender on each demotivating factor by the use of independent sample T-tests. The significance levels indicate that, with the level of significance 0.007, Factor 1 which was coded as lack of selfesteem and intrinsic motivation is the only factor that statistically significant regarding gender. The mean-scores show that this factor is more demotivating for the female students than the male ones. Although the mean-scores show a greater influence of Factors 2, 5, and 6 for the males and Factors 3 and 4 for the Females, the amounts of T and the levels of significance show that this difference is not meaningful. Table 5. Independent sample T-test results: Impact of gender on each demotivating factor Factor 1 N Mean Std. Deviation Male Female Factor 2 N Mean Std. Deviation Male Female Factor 3 N Mean Std. Deviation Male Female Factor 4 N Mean Std. Deviation Male Female Factor 5 N Mean Std. Deviation T Sig T Sig T Sig T Sig Male T Sig

15 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors 55 Female Factor 6 N Mean Std. Deviation Male Female T Sig Relationship between demotivating factors and age To find out if there is a relationship between the students age and each of the demotivating factors, the researcher applied Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Table 6 shows the results. Factors 1 and 5 showed a weak correlation with age (r= and r= 0.139). The positive amount of coefficient is the sign of a direct relationship between the two. It means that with an increase in age, the first, i.e. lack of self-esteem and intrinsic motivation) and the fifth, i.e. lack of given importance in society, factors will have a more demotivating effect on students. For the other factors, no significant relationship was detected with an increase in age. However, this weak correlation may be due to the low variance of the age factor among the university students. There is a possibility that studying the demotivating factors in other contexts like language institutes with a broader age range may show a stronger correlation. Table 6. Correlation results: The relationship between each demotivating factor and age Factor 1 N Pearson Correlation Sig. Age Factor 2 N Pearson Correlation Sig. Age Factor 3 N Pearson Correlation Sig. Age Factor 4 N Pearson Correlation Sig. Age Factor 5 N Pearson Correlation Sig. Age Factor 6 N Pearson Correlation Sig. Age The presented model for the Iranian students demotivation As mentioned in the previous sections, the primitive model induced from the qualitative data included seven factors which were reduced to six factors using the results of factor analysis in the quantitative phase of the research.

16 56 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 As a final step and after a close examination of the results acquired through the interviews and questionnaires, the last category, which included only two items, was combined with the fourth factor because its specificity could not stand as a major category. The finalized model developed for the demotivating factors in this study includes five themes and twenty-two categories as follow: Figure 1. The proposed model for demotivating factors 1. Lack of self-esteem and intrinsic motivation: Belief in the lack of ability to learn English in the adulthood Having fear and stress in learning English Belief in the difficulty of learning English Having a weak background in English Not being interested in learning English Having no need to learn English 2. Teachers Methods and Personality: They were rigid and used punishment They were more interested in grades rather than learning They did not speak English and did not care about speaking and pronunciation Their method of teaching was not comprehensive Their teaching style did not motivate students 3. Lack of Extrinsic Motivation: There is no use for learning English Other courses are more important and applicable than English There is no relationship between one s field of study and English Friends and classmates believe that there is no use to learn English 4. Setbacks in Educational System: The time allocated to the English classes at schools and universities is very limited

17 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors 57 The English textbooks are not suitable The classes are crowded Students are from different levels of proficiency 5. Lack of Given Importance in Society The media do not give much importance to English There is no application defined in the society for English Learning English is not encouraged in the society 6. Discussion The current study intended to investigate the demotivating factors influencing the Iranian non-english majors studying General English course through the use of six research questions. The first question was concerned with the demotivating factors of the university students of Sirjan, Kerman, Iran in an EFL environment. As the analysis of the questionnaires through factor analysis showed, six categories as demotivating factors were extracted as follow: (1) lack of self-esteem and intrinsic motivation; (2) teachers methods and personality; (3) lack of extrinsic motivation; (4) setbacks in educational system; (5) lack of given importance in society and (6) unsuitable class environment. For the second question, among these factors, the least influential factor was Factor 3 and the most influential one was Factor 4, which was later combined with Factor 6 as mentioned above in the presented model of demotivation. Setbacks in educational system included the categories like limited time allocated to English, unsuitable textbooks, crowded classes, and heterogeneous classes with regard to students proficiency. These categories overlap with some of the demotivating factors mentioned in Dörnyei s (2001) and Kikuchi and Sakai s (2007) lists such as inadequate school facilities and coursebooks used in class. Lack of extrinsic motivation as the least primary demotivating factor shows that although the system of education and society do not provide the necessary sources for the students language development, they feel the need to learn English. Lack of given importance in society was the second source of demotivation. This indicates that a need to know and learn English in the EFL environment and the society that students are living in is not emphasized or given importance. The obtained results are not consistent with some of the previous researches in which the teacher-related factors were found to be the main demotivating factors (Chambers, 1993; Dörnyei, 1998, as cited in Dörnyei, 2001; Oxford, 1998; Ushida, 1998). In the present study, teachers methods and personality comprised the third influential demotivating factor. Finally, the lack of selfesteem and intrinsic motivation was the fourth source of demotivation which

18 58 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 was slightly different in content from other studies. In some researches like Dörnyei (1998, as cited in Dörnyei, 2001) and Trang and Baldauf (2007), the internal demotivating factors included the categories like experiences of failure or negative attitudes toward English or the community of the foreign language spoken. However, in the present study, the participants did not mention any of these categories as the reason for their demotivation. They mostly did not have enough confidence in their own learning and felt fearful and anxious when learning English. The outcome for the third research question regarding the impact of the type of university (State, Azad and Payame Noor) on each demotivating factor shows a statistically significant difference for factors 1, 3, and 4 (lack of self-esteem and intrinsic motivation, lack of extrinsic motivation and setbacks in system of education) especially for Payame Noor University students who suffer more from such demotivating factors. Payame Noor University is a state distance university, whose students do not have any obligation to attend the classes. In addition, instructors are supposed to work as advisors and they are not obliged to teach the entire coursebooks. Most of the coursebooks are also exclusively published by the university. Therefore, the special context of Payame Noor University might have caused more demotivation for the students regarding factors 1, 3, and 4. Factor 2 (methods and personality of teachers) was more demotivating for the students of Islamic Azad University. To find the reason for this difference as well as the factors influencing Payame Noor University students, further investigation would be needed to be conducted which is out of this paper s tolerance. In order to investigate the relationship between the demotivating factors and students age and the impact of gender on the demotivating factors (the main point of the questions four and five), Pearson Correlation and independent sample t-tests were utilized, respectively. Considering the results, it was concluded that Factor one was more demotivating for the females than for the males, but no significant difference was detected in the other factors. Moreover, the examination of the demotivating factors in relation to the students age demonstrated a weak correlation between Factors 1, 5, and the increase in age. The high influence of the first factor on the demotivating females might be due to the conditions present at the learning environment as mentioned by Dörnyei (2005) that language learning experience concerns situation-specific motives related to the immediate learning environment and experience (p. 106). Regarding the relationship between age and motivation, the results of this study are somehow in line with a series of studies on the influence of age on motivation like Singleton (1995), Shaaban and Ghaith (2000), and Singlton

19 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors 59 and Ryan (2004) in which the older students were less motivated than the younger ones. Nevertheless, these explanations are mostly skeptical and further investigation is needed. As the final and the main purpose of the study, a model for the demotivating factors influencing Iranian students in language learning was presented and displayed in the previous section. 7. Conclusions This study has tried to present a model of demotivating factors among Iranian university students. Considering new views presented in postmethod theories in language teaching and learning, conducting regional studies can be of great importance not only to get familiar with the sociocultural context of each region but also to try to develop new views and theories as well (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Although the study was conducted in only one of the cities of Iran, it can be seen that the results are obviously different from other countries like Japan, Hungary, and Vietnam as mentioned in the literature. Demotivation can have a negative effect on students gaining their expected outcomes in learning a foreign language. The results of the study show that system of education, society and teachers have an undeniable role in demotivating learners. Therefore, the ministry of education can play a great role in reducing students demotivation by making some fundamental changes in its presented curriculum and coursebooks, and by providing a better learning environment and the necessary facilities for the students. In addition to the ministry of the education which is directly related to students learning, some other authorities like those in charge of the national media can have a major role in enhancing the learners motivation and the status of English as a foreign language in the society. Teachers play a significant part in this regard as well. Teachers, who use suitable methods of teaching, are successful in capturing students interest and have an effective personality and behavior; besides, providing adequate opportunities for their students language development would have a greater chance of decreasing their students demotivation. This study has tried to shed more light on the demotivating factors influencing language learning of Iranian students, but because the study was conducted in one city and the questionnaire items were limited to 35 items, the results might not be generalizable to all Iranian university students so that further study on demotivation in language learning would be needed to be conducted so as to confirm the outcomes. It was hoped that the findings could have the potential to have a great impact on diminishing the demotivating factors that students confront.

20 60 The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(4), Winter 2014, Ser. 73/4 References Alavinia, P. & Sehat, R. (2012). A Probe into the Main Demotivating Factors among Iranian EFL Learners. ELT Journal, 5(6), Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Chambers, G. (1993). Talking the de out of demotivation. Language Learning Journal, 7, Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and selfdeternination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Demotivation in foreign language learning. Unpublished paper presented at the TESOL 98 Congress, Seattle, WA. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ely, C. M. (1986a). An analysis of discomfort, risk taking, sociability, and motivation in the L2 classroom. Language Learning, 36, Ely, C. M. (1986b). Language learning motivation: A descriptive and causal analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 70, Falout, J., Elwood, J., & Hood, M. (2009). Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes. System, 37(3), Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd Ed.). London: Sage. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Jomairi, S. (2011). Demotivating Factors in Second Language Learning at State, Azad and Payam-Nour Universities. Paper presented at ICLLL conference, Dubai, U.A.E. Kikuchi, K., Sakai, H. (2007). Japanese learners demotivation to study English: A survey study. Unpublished manuscript. Koiso, K (2003). The characteristics of motivation of Japanese adult English learners. General Social Surveys [5] JGSS from JGSS-2003 Data. Retrieved November 26, 2008 from gssm5_8.pdf Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lynch, B.K. (1996). Language program evaluation: theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21 Demotivating Factors Affecting Undergraduate Learners of Non-English Majors 61 Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. In Z. Dörnyei (Ed.). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning (pp ). Oxford: Blackwell. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. NY: Newbury House. Oxford, R. (1998). The unravelling tapestry: teacher and course characteristics associated with demotivation in the language classroom. Unpublished paper presented at the TESOL 98 Congress, Seattle, WA. Oxoford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(i), Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative education and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Scarcella, R.C., & Oxford, R.L. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Shaaban, K. A. & Ghaith, G. (2000), Student Motivation to Learn English as a Foreign Language. Foreign Language Annals, 33, Sharififar, M., & Akbarzadeh, M. (2011). An analysis of demotivators in English classes for Iranian university students. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7, Singleton, D. (1995). A critical look at the critical period hypothesis in language acquisition research. In D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel (Ed.). The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition: A Critical Look at the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 1-29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Singleton D. and L. Ryan (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor (2nd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trang, T. & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2007). Demotivation: Understanding resistance to English language learning The case of Vietnamese students. The Journal of Asia TEFL,4,(1), Ushioda, E. (1998). Effective motivational thinking: A cognitive theoretical approach to the study of language learning motivation. In E.A. Soler, & V. C. Espurz (Eds.). Current Issues in English Language Methodology (pp ). Universitat Jaume I, Catello de la Plana, Spain.